Appeal No. 2001-2696
Application No. 08/950,230
forth in claims 1-5 and 7-12. Accordingly, we reverse.
We note that anticipation is established only when a single
prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles
of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as
well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore & Assocs.
v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to each of the appealed independent claims 1,
5, 7, 9, and 11, the Examiner attempts to read the various
limitations on the disclosure of Cliff. In particular, the
Examiner points to various excerpts at pages 4, 5, 7, 18, and
21-23 of the disclosure of Cliff.
After reviewing the Cliff reference in light of the
arguments of record, we are in general agreement with Appellants’
position as stated in the Briefs. With respect to independent
claim 1, we agree with Appellants (Brief, pages 8 and 9) that the
Examiner has not shown how the cited portions of the Cliff
reference correspond to several key features of claim 1. In
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007